RAPID  TRANSIT. 


REVIEW 


OF  THE 


REPORT  OF  THE  COMMITTEE 


OK 


\u  y\\mm\  |)orietg  of  |;tiH  fiight^r 


ON 


RAPID  TRANSIT. 


BY 


RK'HARD  P.  MORGAN,  Jr..  ( '.  E. 


AND 


LETTER    OF    JULIUS    W.    ADAMS,  C.E 


NEW  YORK  : 
LANGE,  LITTLE  &  CO.,  PRINTERS, 

108,  110,  112  &  114  Woostek  St. 
1875. 


i£x  Safaris 


SEYMOUR  DURST 


"t '  'Fort  nieuw  ^Am^ierda^  oj>  Je  Manha-tans 


FORT   NEW  AMSTERDAM- 


(NEW  YORK),  1651. 


"When  you  leave,  please  leave  this  book 

Because  it  has  been  said 
" Ever  thing  comes  t'  him  who  waits 

Except  a  loaned  book." 


V1 


7 1 


Avery  Architectural  and  Fine  Arts  Library 
Gift  of  Seymour  B.  Durst  Old  York  Library 


RAPID  TRANSIT 


REVIEW  OF  REPORT  OF  COMMITTEE. 


St.  Nicholas  Hotel,  ) 
New  York,  Feb.  27,  1875.  \ 

Julius  AY.  Adams,  Esq., 

President  of  the  American  Society  of  Oivil 

Engineers. 

Sir  : — I  have  examined  a  copy  of  the  report  of 
Messrs.  O.  Chanute,  M.  N.  Forney,  Asbel  Welch, 
Chas.  K.  Graham,  and  F.  Collingwood,  a  committee 
appointed  by  your  Society  on  the  3d  of  September 
last,  to  consider  and  recommend  plans  for  the  best 
means  of  rapid  transit  for  passengers,  etc.,  in  the 
City  of  New  York — which  report  was  read  to  the 
Society  on  the  3d  day  of  February,  inst.,  and  given 
to  the  public  through  the  press  on  the  18th  inst.* 

*Gen.  J.  G.  Barnard,  one  of  the  original  Committee,  early  in- 
formed me  that  he  only  acted  on  the  Committee  at  some  of  the 
sittings  when  plans  were  being  received,  and  should  not  par- 
ticipate in  the  preparation  of  the  report. 
1 


Although  I  am  not  a  member  of  your  Society, 
yet,  inasmuch  as  in  compliance  with  its  invitation 
by  circular,  issued  on  the  15th  day  of  September, 
1874,  I  had  the  honor  to  submit  a  communication 
on  the  subject  of  rapid  transit  for  passengers  in  the 
City  of  Xew  York,  together  with  detailed  plans  of 
the  structure  which  I  propose,  and  diagrams  with 
full  calculations  of  strains,  etc.,  accompanied  with 
estimates  of  cost,  and  certain  general  suggestions 
relating  to  the  comparative  value  of  the  various 
methods  heretofore  offered  for  the  solution  of  the 
problem  of  rapid  transit  of  persons;  I  therefore 
take  the  liberty  of  submitting  certain  views  in 
regard  to  the  report  of  your  Committee,  which 
seem  to  me  worthy  of  consideration  by  the  Society. 

One  inducement  to  act  upon  the  invitation  of  the 
Society,  was  the  suggestion  in  its  resolutions  and 
circular,  that  the  best  general  plan  of  rapid  transit 
for  passengers,  would  be  recommended  by  the  Com- 
mittee, and  that  due  credit  was  to  be  given  to  all 
those  who  might  in  their  communications  present 
plans  and  make  valuable  su^o'estions. 

Believing  as  I  did,  and  still  do,  that  the  Society 
in  its  final  action  would  endeavor  to  do  justice,  and 
a  public  service,  and  would  recommend  for  adoption 
what  seemed  the  best  plan  presented,  I  unhesitat- 
ingly offered  my  plans  and  communication  for  its 
consideration.  The  office  of  the  Committee,  as  I 
understand  it,  was  quasi  judicial — to  receive  and 
consider  the  various  j)lans  which  might  be  proposed, 
and  to  recommend  that  from  among  them,  which 
seemed  best  adapted  to  secure  the  result  desired. 

The  general  conclusions  of   the  Committee  in 


3 


regard  to  the  comparative  merits  of  the  three  classes 
of  roads  brought  forward— designated  as  the  Under- 
ground,  Depressed,  and  Elevated  railroad  systems — 
meet  my  fullest  concurrence. 

My  professional  attention  was  especially  directed 
to  this  subject  by  the  report  of  the  X.  Y.  Senate 
Special  Commission  in  January,  1867. 

In  considering  the  question,  I  early  came  to  the 
conclusion  that  the  proposed  plans  for  Underground 
or  Depressed  (through  the  blocks)  roads,  were  im- 
practicable ;  and  in  a  report  published  by  myself  in 
1869,  a  copy  of  which  was  presented  to  your  Com- 
mittee with  my  communication,  stated  my  reasons 
for  that  conclusion.  The  rej>ort  of  your  Committee 
concurs  with  the  views  which  I  then  expressed  as 
to  the  objections  to  those  two  methods  of  construc- 
tion, and  has  to  a  considerable  extent  adopted  the 
language  which  I  then  employed. 

Further  reflection  has  confirmed  my  belief  in  the 
correctness  of  the  opinions  which  I  then  entertained, 
as  to  the  comparative  merits  of  the  three  systems 
proposed,  and  I  am  happy  to  find  that  those  views 
have  been  indorsed  by  your  Committee,  both  as 
regards  the  structure,  the  power,  and  rolling-stock 
proposed,  as  well  as  the  method  of  operating  the  same. 

Having  reached  this  result,  it  only  remained  to 
consider  whether  any  plan  for  an  elevated  road 
could  be  devised,  which  would  meet  the  necessary 
conditions  of  the  problem,  viz.,  safety,  efficiency, 
economy  of  construction,  and  the  least  practicable 
interference  with  existing  vested  interests ;  and  also 
as  a  whole,  presenting  a  system  adapted  to  not  only 
the  present,  but  the  great  future  of  New  York. 


4 


These  considerations  were  the  basis  of  my  action 
in  the  preparation  of  plans  adapted  to  the  existing 
streets  and  avenues,  as  set  forth  in  my  former  re- 
ports, and  recent  communication  to  your  society. 
Those  plans  having  been  approved  by  many  of  the 
most  distinguished  civil  engineers  of  this  country, 
and  having  met  your  own  cordial  endorsement  as 
"  entirely  filling  the  conditions,"  I  was  led  to  hope 
that  the  problem  which  had  so  long  occupied  public 
attention  had  been  substantially  solved,  and  that 
your  committee  would  so  "  recommend,"  and  give 
me  "  due  credit." 

In  their  report  the  Committee  state,  on  page  18, 
that  upon  the  avenues  "  there  are  two  possible  loca- 
tions for  an  elevated  road ;  either  the  tracks  may  be 
close  together  over  the  centre  of  the  roadway,  or 
they  may  be  independent  tracks,  one  on  each  side  of 
•  the  street."  They  also  observe  in  regard  to  the 
avenues,  that  in  them  is  found  the  great  obstacle  to 
cheap  rapid  transit,  because  "  their  great  width,  60 
feet  between  curbs,  adds  enormously  to  the  cost  of 
constructing  a  road  over  the  center  of  the  street,  if 
support  must  be  taken  at  the  curb  stone."  But  if 
roads  shall  be  constructed  upon  that  plan,  the  Com- 
mittee say,  that  the  best  seems  to  be  that  which  I 
have  had  the  honor  to  present. 

My  estimate  of  the  cost  of  a  road  adapted  to  the 
transportation  of  passengers  only,  as  carefully  re- 
vised to  suit  the  present  prices  of  iron  and  labor,  is 
$486,000  per  mile  of  double  track  road.  This  in- 
cludes the  cost  of  foundations,  stations  at  half  mile 
distances  on  each  side,  and  all  other  expenses  ex- 
cept the  right  of  way  and  rolling  stock.    The  right 


5 


of  way,  on  the  lines  of  streets,  it  is  anticipated,  in- 
asmuch as  it  already  belongs  to  the  public,  will  cost 
nothing.  To  this  there  may  be  an  occasional  excep- 
tion in  crossing  from  the  line  of  one  street  to  an- 
other,  through  blocks.  The  earlier  estimate  of  cost 
for  a  passenger  road,  submitted  by  me,  of  $520,000 
per  mile,  was  made  at  a  time  -before  the  present  low 
prices  of  iron  and  labor. 

Though  it  is  not  distinctly  stated  in  the  report  of 
the  Committee,  yet  I  find,  greatly  to  my  surprise, 
that  the  plan  of  supporting  a  double  track  railway 
over  the  centre  of  the  carriage-way,  by  placing  the 
supporting  columns  in  the  road-way  of  the  street, 
between  the  curbs,  seems  to  be  favored  by  them. 
They  say  in  their  report,  page  20,  that  "  The  argu- 
ment in  favor  of  placing  posts  in  the  road- way  to 
carrv  an  elevated  road  over  the  centre  of  an  avenue 
is  the  single  one  of  economv ;  as  it  will  cost  twice 
as  much,  if  the  support  is  taken  from  the  edge  of 
the  curb,  as  it  will  if  the  posts  are  placed  in  the  car- 
riage-way." Again,  on  page  28,  they  say.  "  A  re- 
quirement that  the  tracks  should  be  over  the  centre 
of  the  street,  and  bearing  be  taken  from  the  edge 
of  the  side-walk  would  more  than  double  the  ex- 
pense." 

In  these  statements  of  comparative  expense,  the 
Committee  are  greatly  mistaken.  The  cost  of  equiv- 
alent roads  with  equal  length  of  spans  along  the 
streets  or  avenues,  may  be  divided  into  four  parts 
— three  of  which  are  substantially  constant,  and  one 
only,  is  variable. 

The  cost  of  the  foundations  which  carry  the  super- 
structure, at  distances  suggested  by  the  Committee, 


6 


50  feet,  page  20,  would  be  practically  the  same  in 
either  case  whether  constructed  near  the  centre  of 
the  carriage-way  or  at  the  curb-stone. 

In  passing  it  may,  however,  be  remarked,  that  the 
interference  with  the  use  of  the  street  while  con- 
structing  foundations  in  the  carriage-way  near  its 
centre,  will  be  very  much  greater  than  if  they  are 
at  the  sidewalk,  and  that  the  risk  of  injury  to  sew- 
ers, gas  and  water  mains,  by  excavations  in  the  mid- 
dle of  the  street  will  be  considerable,  and  will  not 
exist  by  excavations  at  the  sidewalks. 

Likewise  the  longitudial  trusses  and  structure  to 
carry  the  tracks  would  cost  the  same.  The  stations, 
apj)roaches  and  platforms,  are  exactly  alike  in  cost, 
when  equal  in  number  and  capacity.  This  leaves  the 
fourth  element  only,  variable  as  above  suggested? 
viz.:  the  transverse  frame  which  supjDorts  the  rail- 
Avay  : — and  the  difference  in  cost  stated  by  the  Com 
mittee  must  be  found  in  this  element. 

The  Committee  referring  to  a  road  supported  on 
posts  in  the  carriageway  say  on  page  21,  that  "  a 
double  track  road  can  be  built  for  $300,000  per 
mile  on  an  assumed  rolling  load  of  1,200  lbs.  per 
lineal  foot  of  track,  exclusive  of  stations  or  equip- 
ment." As  no  data  are  given  in  their  report  from 
which  this  result  is  reached,  I  am  unable  to  test  its 
correctness  by  any  direct  calculation.  It  is  sufficient 
however,  to  say  that  after  deducting  from  their  as- 
sumed cost,  the  cost  of  foundations,  roadway,  and 
longitudinal  trusses,  as  estimated  in  my  communica- 
tion, it  leaves  almost  no  residuum  to  cover  the  cost 
of  the  transverse  frames  which  support  the  track 
and  longitudinal  structure.     Whatever  difference 


7 


therefore,  may  exist  in  the  whole  cost  of  the  struc- 
tures, must  be  found  in  the  different  cost  of  the 
transverse  frames.  Referring  as  a  comparison  to  my 
estimate  of  the  cost  of  a  road  competent  to  sustain 
a  rolling  load  of  2,000  lbs.  per  lineal  foot  on  each 
track,  appended  to  my  communication,  it  will  be 
seen,  that  the  cost  of  the  transverse  frames  in  one 
section,  75  feet,  is  $3,960  each,  while  the  total  cost 
of  the  span,  including  foundations,  longitudinal  work, 
proportion  of  stations  and  entrance-ways,  engineer- 
ing and  contingencies,  is  $11,947.76.  The  cost  there- 
fore, of  the  transverse  frames,  is  a  very  little  less 
than  one-third  of  the  total  cost  of  the  road. 

The  difference  in  the  cost  of  the  transverse  frames 
constructed  upon  the  plan  which  I  propose  to  span 
a  street  of  50  feet  carriage  way,  or  one  of  60  feet, 
instead  of  being  "  enormous,"  as  the  Committee  state, 
even  when  applied  to  the  frames  themselves,  and 
not  to  the  total  cost  of  the  road,  is  but  slight.  I 
have  already  shown  that  the  difference  in  widths  of 
streets  has  no  appreciable  effect  upon  the  cost  of 
any  portion  of  equivalent  elevated  roads,  except  the 
transverse  supports  to  the  longitudinal  work.  If  the 
frames  constructed  on  my  plan  shall  be  widened  so 
as  to  span  a  60  feet  carriage  way,  instead  of  one 
narrower,  say  46  feet,  the  necessary  change  will  be 
only  the  lengthening  and  slightly  increased  strength 
of  the  interior  connections  between  the  supporting 
ribs;  and  the  difference  in  cost,  therefore,  cannot  but 
be  slight.  Whatever  the  width  of  the  street  may  be, 
the  cost  of  all  but  the  transverse  frames  remains  un- 
changed ;  and,  therefore,  the  statements  of  the  Com- 
mittee, p.  18,  that  the  additional  width  of  the  street 


8 


"  adds  enormously  to  the  cost  of  constructing  a 
road,"  or  that,  p.  20,  "  it  will  cost  twice  as  much  if 
the  support  is  taken  from  the  edge  of  the  curb  as  it 
will  if  the  posts  are  placed  in  the  carriage  way,"  or 
that,  p.  28,  "a  requirement  that  the  tracks  should 
be  over  the  centre  of  the  street,  and  "bearing  be  taken 
from  the  edge  of  the  sidewalk,  would  more  than 
double  the  expense,"  are  extravagant,  and  entirely 
unwarranted  by  the  truth. 

But  it  is  evident  from  what  has  just  been  said 
that  the  difference  in  the  cost  of  these  transverse 
frames  cannot  be  so  great  as  to  reconcile  the  dis- 
crepancy between  the  estimate  of  the  Committee 
and  my  own,  as  to  the  total  cost  of  the  road,  nor 
justify  their  extravagant  language  page  18,  that  the 
width  of  the  avenues  "  adds  enormously  to  the  cost 
of  constructing  a  road  over  the  centre  of  the  street 
if  support  must  be  taken  at  the  curbstone." 

In  view  of  the  foregoing  facts,  and  having  several 
years  since  made  approximate  estimates  of  the  cost 
of  the  plan  suggested  by  your  Committee,  I  am  con- 
vinced that  they  have  greatly  exaggerated  the  dif- 
ference between  the  cost  of  the  plans  under  consid- 
eration. 

I  desire  to  call  your  attention  to  a  surprising  in- 
consistency, contained  in  the  report  of  your  Commit- 
tee, when  comparing  the  probable  ]3ecuniary  value 
of  a  road  constructed  upon  my  plan,  and  the  value 
of  a  road  constructed  upon  any  plan.  On  page  19 
of  their  report  the  Committee  say,  in  reference  to 
my  plan  costing  $486,000  per  mile,  "if  the  estimates 
of  revenue  and  operating  expenses  made  by  your 
Committee  are  correct,  there  is  but  one  line  which 


9 


can  afford  to  adopt  such  a  plan and  yet,  on  p.  33, 
in  summing  up  the  result  of  their  estimated  sources 
of  revenue,  and  all  the  plans  and  schemes  submitted 
to  them — 75  in  all — the  Committee  says  it  has 
reached  five  conclusions,  the  first  of  which  is  in  these 
words : 

"  1st.  In  order  to  be  profitable  with  the  fares  and 
volume  of  business  likely  to  be  obtained,  double 
tracked  rapid  transit  roads  should  not  be  planned 
to  cost,  fully  equipped,  much,  if  any,  more  than  from 
$700,000  to  $1,125,000  per  mile,  according  to  loca- 
tion ;  and  this  points  to  some  form  of  elevated 
railroad  as  the  leading;  feature  of  the  design  to  be 
recommended." 

Why  it  is  that  a  line  of  road  which  is  to  cost 
$486,000  per  mile,  can  be  profitable  only  upon  "  one 
route  7  iu  this  city,  when  the  Committee  state  as  a 
general  result  of  their  investigations,  that  roads 
costing  from  $700,000  to  $1,125,000  per  mile  may 
be  expected  to  be  profitable,  I  leave  to  them  to  ex- 
plain. True,  in  the  former  estimate  the  cost  of 
equipment  is  not  included ;  but  the  Committee  esti- 
mate the  cost  of  stations  and  equipment  for  the 
greatest  business  contemplated  by  them,  viz.,  35,000,- 
000  passengers  annually,  at  $225,000  per  mile.  In 
my  estimate  stations  are  included  at  $40,000  j>er  mile, 
leaving,  therefore,  to  be  added  to  $186,000,  $185,- 
000  per  mile  for  equipment,  making  the  aggregate 
cost  of  the  road,  stations  and  equipment,  $671,000 
per  mile,  or  less  than  the  minimum  cost  estimated 
by  the  Committee  for  a  profitable  line.  I  ask 
again,  how  can  the  Committee  justify  themselves  in 


10 


saying  that  "  there  is  but  one  line  which  can  afford 
to  adopt  such  a  plan." 

The  Committee  having  reached  the  conclusion  that 
the  only  practicable  plan  for  rapid  transit,  p.  33, 
"points  to  some  form  of  elevated  railroad  as  the 
leading  feature  of  the  design  to  be  recommended," 
seem  to  indicate  that  the  road  should  be  supported 
by  posts  placed  near  the  middle  of  the  carriage-way 
of  the  street.  They  have  assumed  that  a  road  so 
constructed  would  be  much  more  economical  than 
any  other,  costing  less  than  half,  etc,  pp.  20,  28. 
The  great  inaccuracy  of  this  assumption  appears  by 
what  has  already  been  said. 

The  objections  to  the  support  of  an  elevated  road 
by  placing  posts  in  the  carriage-way  of  the  streets,  I 
have  considered  on  pp.  14,  15  and  16  of  my  original 
communication,  to  which  I  respectfully  refer  you, 
without  repeating  what  I  then  said.  These  objec- 
tions are  somewhat  reduced  by  the  suggestion  of 
your  Committee,  p.  20  of  their  report,  that  the  sup- 
ports should  be  placed  at  intervals  of  about  50  feet 
instead  of  16  feet  as  originally  proposed.  The  greater 
distance  between  the  supports,  however,  increases  the 
cost  of  the  structure  by  the  additional  strength  re- 
quired in  the  supports  themselves,  and  especially  in 
the  longitudinal  part  of  the  road.  The  suggestion 
of  the  Committee  on  p.  21,  that  a  police  regulation 
requiring  that  vehicles  proceeding  rapidly  should 
hug  the  line  of  the  posts,  and  that  those  proceeding 
slowly,  should  hug  the  side-walk,  recognizes  the 
difficulty  which  such  a  structure  would  occasion  in 
the  ordinary  use  of  the  street.    Without  intending 


• 


11 


any  disrespect  to  the  Committee,  I  may  be  permitted 
to  express  my  doubt,  whether  a  police  regulation 
which  seeks  to  divide  the  street  traffic  of  a  great 
city  into  two  parts,  one  like  a  funeral  procession  go- 
ing slowly  to  the  cemetery,  and  the  other  hastening 
on  its  return,  can  be  enforced,  or  would  prove  in  the 
slightest  decree  useful. 

Whatever  plan  may  be  adopted  for  rapid  transit, 
must  be  one  looking  to  the  future,  as  well  as  to 
the  present ;  and  the  structure  should  be  one  which 
will  be  permanent. 

I  do  not  believe  that  the  suggestion  of  the  Com- 
mittee  on  p.  20  of  the  report,  that  in  portions  of 
streets  where  "the  traffic  is  now,  and  is  likely  to  con- 
tinue so  small,  and  the  adjoining  buildings  are  of  so 
poor  a  character,  that  if  the  spans  be  made  about 
50  feet,  posts  within  the  roadway  are  not  likely  to 
prove-  a  serious  annoyance,"  is  well  founded.  If  the 
traffic  is  as  small  as  indicated,  no  rapid  transit 
road  is  required,  unless  it  is  likely  to  increase  when 
rapid  communication  is  provided.  In  that  case,  the 
structure  should,  in  the  first  instance,  be  such  as  to 
encourage  and  facilitate  the  expected  increase. 

The  Committee  seem  to  act  upon  the  supposition 
that  those  avenues  where  the  surface  traffic,  p.  20,  u  is 
so  large,  or  the  property  so  valuable,  that  support  must 
be  taken  at  the  sidewalk,"  are  the  only  ones  to  which 
that  condition  will  ever  apply.  The  very  object  of 
constructing  lines  of  rapid  transit  to  the  upper  part 
of  the  city,  is  to  furnish  facilities  for  its  occupation, 
and  to  concentrate  there  a  dense  population,  requir- 
ing streets  as  free  from  obstruction,  as  those  which 


12 


the  Committee  state  have  so  large  a  surface  traffic, 
that  support  for  an  elevated  road  must  be  taken  from 
the  sidewalk. 

The  design  therefore  which  shall  be  adopted  should 
meet  that  necessity,  and  should  not  be  one  tempor- 
ary in  its  character ;  to  be  changed  only  after  a  long 
interference  with  public  convenience.  It  seems  clear 
that  a  due  regard  for  the  future  of  New  York, 
would  forbid  the  adoption  of  the  suggested  plan  of 
your  Committee. 

The  confidence  which  I  expressed  in  my  original 
communication,  in  the  ability  and  desire  of  your 
society  to  determine  justly  upon  the  various  plans 
proposed  for  rapid  transit  in  Xew  York,  and  which  I 
still  entertain,  has  induced  me  to  present  to  you  this 
review  of  the  report  of  your  Committee.  I  have 
confined  myself  in  what  has  been  said,  to  a  review 
of  so  much  of  that  report  as  relates  to  the  transit 
of  persons  by  a  system  of  elevated  roads  constructed 
along  the  lines  of  existing  streets. 

Some  of  the  inconsi>tencies  of  that  report,  and  the 
grave  errors  into  which  the  Committee  have  fallen, 
it  has  been  attempted  to  show  from  the  language  of 
the  report  itself,  as  before  quoted.  That  such  er- 
rors exist  seems  evident,  and  that  the  report  of  the 
Committee  does  serious  injustice  to  the  plan  of  road 
proposed  by  myself,  and  fails  to  fulfill  public  expec- 
tion  as  to  the  effect  of  the  action  of  your  Society 
on  this  great  subject,  is  certain.  Whether  your 
Society  will  deem  it  wise  to  pursue  the  topic  further, 
and  announce  its  views  as  to  the  best  plan  of  roads 
for  rapid  transit  in  cities,  and  so  furnish  the  guide 


13 


to  public  action,  which  the  position  of  the  Society 
justifies,  and  which  has  been  so  generally  expected, 
it  alone  can  determine. 

Very  respectfully,  etc., 


RICHARD  P.  MORGAN,  Je., 

Civil  Engineer. 


14 


Brooklyn,  N.  Y.,  March  1,  1875. 

Richard  P.  Morgan,  Jr.,  Esq., 

Dear  Sir, — Your  favor  of  the  27th  inst.,  com- 
menting upon  the  report  of  the  Committee  on  rapid 
transit,  etc.,  of  the  American  Society  of  Civil  En- 
gineers is  received. 

I  will  communicate  the  same  to  the  Society,  as 
you  request. 

I  have  examined  it  with  interest,  and  concur  with 
the  conclusions  which  you  state.  As  I  wrote  to 
you  before,  your  plan  seemed  to  me,  when  I  ex- 
amined it,  to  fulfill  the  conditions  required  to  furnish 
rapid  transit  in  great  cities.  I  am  still  firm  in  that 
opinion,  and  fully  believe  that  your  structure,  with 
occasional  modifications  as  you  have  indicated,  to 
meet  exceptional  conditions,  is  the  best  which  has 
been  presented. 

Its  stability,  efficiency,  economy,  tasteful  form  and 
facility  of  construction,  all  unite  to  recommend  it  to 
public  favor;  and  in  these  respects  combined,  it 
possesses  merits  which  no  other  plan  yet  suggested 
does,  and  which,  I  doubt  not,  will  in  practice,  if  it 
shall  be  constructed,  satisfy  fully  all  the  expectations 
of  its  friends  and  the  public. 

You  are  at  liberty  to  make  such  use  of  this  letter 
as  you  may  see  fit. 

Very  respectfully,  etc., 

JULIUS  W.  ADAMS, 

Civil  Engineer. 


AvfKY 
IMM 


.  1 


